Buried Bodies Case

Last updated

The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr. [1]

Contents

Ahead of trial for an unrelated murder, Garrow confessed to his lawyers that he had murdered two missing women and hidden their bodies. [1] [2] Armani and Belge found the women's bodies but chose to keep the information confidential. [2] Authorities continued to search for the missing women for months as their families grieved. [1] [2] When the public discovered Armani and Belge had kept this information secret, they faced criminal charges and disbarment proceedings. [2] [3] The attorneys claimed they were bound by the duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client. [3] Armani and Belge were later absolved of any wrongdoing. [4]

The case has become a touchstone in legal ethics courses. [1] [4] It highlights lawyers' ethical obligation to keep their clients' information confidential. [5] [6] It also showcases the ethical questions that can arise for lawyers related to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and clients' self-incrimination. [5] The case has helped shape the development of ethical rules on confidentiality. [4]

History

Background

In the summer of 1973, attorney Frank H. Armani was appointed to serve as counsel for Robert Garrow, Sr. [3] [2] Garrow, a 38-year old mechanic of a Syracuse bakery, was charged with murdering Philip Domblewski. [3] Domblewski, an 18-year-old college student, was murdered while camping in the Adirondacks. [1] He was tied to a tree and stabbed to death. [1] [2] Three friends were also ambushed, but escaped, leading to an eleven-day manhunt for the killer. [1] [5] With no experience in murder trials, Armani recruited his friend Francis Belge, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to help represent Garrow. [1]

Ahead of trial, Garrow told his attorneys that he killed Domblewski. [1] Garrow also claimed he murdered and hid the bodies of two missing women, Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck. [1] He drew a diagram to show them where Petz was buried. [7] Armani later claimed that Garrow confessed to the murders after Armani hypnotized him. [4] [2]

Following Garrow's confession, Armani and Belge decided to confirm whether Garrow was telling the truth. [4] They used Garrow's diagram to uncover Petz's body in an airshaft of a coal mine in Mineville, NY. [1] [7] Belge later uncovered Hauck's body in a Syracuse, NY cemetery based on Garrow's description. [1] The lawyers photographed the remains of both women. [8] Belge moved Hauck's body to ensure a dismembered part was included in the photograph. [9] They later destroyed the photographs, the record of their conversation with Garrow, and the diagram he drew. [4] [9]

Belge and Armani told no one about their discoveries. [8] The attorneys believed they were bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client. [3] [10] They chose not to alert authorities despite pleas from Hauck's father for information. [3] [2] Hauck and Armani's daughter went to the same school. [5] Family members and authorities continued to search for the women. [8] The bodies were discovered accidentally five months after Garrow confessed in private to his attorneys. [3]

Trial

Armani and Belge proposed a plea bargain using the information they had uncovered ahead of trial. [4] They told the prosecutor that they might be able to provide information to help authorities find the missing women if Garrow were sentenced to life in a mental hospital rather than prison. [1] The prosecutor refused. [1]

In the summer of 1974, Garrow's trial for the murder of Domblewski began. [4] Armani and Belge pursued an insanity defense. [4] While testifying in his own defense, Garrow admitted to murdering four people including Petz and Hauck. [1] During direct examination of Garrow, Belge asked, “Is that the one I found?” implying that he was aware of the dead women prior to trial. [1] The attorneys held a press conference the next day, where they admitted they had known about the location of the missing women for six months. [1]

Garrow was convicted for Domblewski's murder. [1] He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. [1]

Public scrutiny

Armani and Belge were harassed and threatened by the public for keeping information about the deceased women secret. [11] They received death threats and angry letters. [5] News outlets claimed they obstructed justice or acted as accomplices after the fact. [12] The public also criticized lawyers generally for their callousness and lack of concern for the public interest. [12] [2] Armani and Belge faced criminal and ethical proceedings. [1]

People v. Belge

A grand jury investigated the attorneys' conduct. [3] Belge was indicted for allegedly violating two state public health laws by failing to disclose his discovery of the dead bodies. [12] [13]

In People v. Belge, Belge claimed conversations about the missing women were confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege, which prevents lawyers from disclosing protected communications about their clients. [12] [14] He claimed he could not have shared the information with authorities. [12] [14] The National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers wrote a brief supporting Belge, arguing that attorney-client privilege would be destroyed if Belge were convicted. [12]

The New York county court dismissed the indictment "in the interests of justice." [12] The court found that Belge had protected the Fifth Amendment constitutional right of his client not to incriminate himself. [12] It also found that Garrow's disclosure of information about the missing women was protected by confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege. [12] In its decision, the court explained:

"The effectiveness of counsel is only as great as the confidentiality of its client-attorney relationship. If the lawyer cannot get all the facts about the case, he can only give his client half of a defense. This, of necessity, involves telling his attorney everything remotely connected with the crime." [12]

The prosecution appealed. [15] The appeals court confirmed that the claims should be dismissed, but expressed concern about a limitless attorney-client privilege. [15] It noted that attorneys must protect their clients, but must also "observe basic human standards of decency." [15]

Ethics complaints

One of the victims' parents filed ethics complaints against Armani and Belge with New York State Bar Association disciplinary officials. [3]

The New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics found that the attorneys acted ethically by refusing to disclose information about the missing women. [9] [16] The committee explained that the attorneys would have violated their ethical obligations to keep their client's confidential information secret if they had disclosed the details to authorities. [9]

The ethics opinion emphasized that the attorney-client privilege is necessary to ensure clients disclose all possible pertinent information to their lawyers. [9] [16] It further explained that disclosure of all possibly pertinent information allows attorneys to craft the strongest defense and protect their clients' rights to the fullest extent. [9]

Aftermath

Although both lawyers were ultimately absolved of wrongdoing, the fallout took a toll on Armani and Belge. [1] Belge abandoned his law practice and moved to Florida. [1] Armani suffered a heart attack. [1] His law practice was initially destroyed though he later rebuilt it. [1]

Four years after his conviction, Garrow escaped from prison. [11] When authorities searched his cell, they found a hit list including Armani and Belge's names. [11] Armani gave police advice about where Garrow might have gone. [11] This information led police to discover Garrow hiding near the prison. [11] He was shot and killed. [11]

Ethical issues

The central question Armani and Belge faced was whether to disclose the location of the missing women's bodies. [5] Disclosure of their discoveries could have implicated their client in the women's murders. [5]

The case also raises broader ethical questions about the role of the lawyer, and their obligations to their clients and society as a whole. [3] [10] The case showcases the tension between protecting a client's interest and the potential emotional harm that victims, their family, or a community might experience. [10] [14] It also shows the potential tension between a lawyer's professional obligations and their personal interests or values. [14]

Some scholars have suggested the case presents further ethical questions if altered facts are considered. [4] For example, scholars have asked whether Armani and Belge would have been required to assist the women or disclose their locations had they been found alive. [4]

A few contemporary legal and ethical doctrines are relevant in cases like the Buried Bodies Case today.

Confidentiality

Lawyers have an ethical obligation to keep their clients' information secret. [5] [6] This duty of confidentiality extends beyond information the client tells the lawyer directly. [5] Any information a lawyer learns "relating to the representation of the client" must be kept confidential, including information learned from interviews, photographs, or observations. [5] [6] A lawyer can disclose information if a client consents. [6] If a lawyer violates their client's confidentiality, the lawyer may be subject to disciplinary proceedings. [5]

Some states have adopted exceptions to this rule. [5] [17] One exception adopted by some states is that a lawyer may reveal client information if they believe the disclosure is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. [6]

Attorney-Client Privilege

Lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose certain lawyer-client communications due to the attorney-client privilege. [5] "Privileged" information includes communications where a client seeks legal advice or services. [5] Attorney-client privilege is not an ethical obligation, but rather a procedural rule. [5] A court can quash a request for a lawyer to disclose information that violates the privilege. [5]

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects defendants against self-incrimination. [18]

Impact

The Buried Bodies Case attracted significant attention in the mid-1970s in the throes of the Watergate scandal. [4] Several legal scholars believe Armani and Belge acted ethically in refraining from sharing their client's confession. [4] [7] [19] During Watergate, the American Bar Association (ABA) began reconsidering attorneys' ethical obligations. [4] Meanwhile, law schools too began reconsidering the form of legal ethics in their curriculum. [4]

Confidentiality rules

While ethical rules are determined by each state, portions of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct have been adopted by 49 states. [17] [20] All states have some ethical duty of confidentiality in their code of professional responsibility. [21]

The Buried Bodies Case helped shape the development of one of the main exceptions to the ABA's rule on confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6). [4] Model Rule 1.6 provides that a lawyer will not reveal information relevant to her representation of a client without the client's consent. [6] The case contributed to an exception that allows lawyers to disclose information if a person could be imminently harmed. [4] The exception states that a lawyer may reveal information relating to their client if they reasonably believe it is necessary "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." [6]

This exception, added by amendment in 2002, was hotly contested; lawyers worried the language might erode the duty of confidentiality. [3]

The case has become a touchstone of legal ethics courses. [1] The case is widely taught in law schools to examine concerns that arise out of the duty of confidentiality. [3] It is a fixture in professional responsibility textbooks. [5] [22]

It may have also encouraged legal ethics professors to incorporate problems or case studies into their teaching. [4] The Buried Bodies Case provided professors with an example in the mid-1970s of how ethical issues could be taught from a human perspective with real world problems. [4]

The case has also been used by business schools to explore the challenges that can arise from role-based obligations. [23]

Criticism

The mother of Susan Petz, one of the girls murdered by Garrow, remains unsatisfied by the case. [1] In a 2016 interview with Radiolab, she criticized law schools for teaching the case. [1] She suggested lawyers should consider the victims' families when deciding whether to keep information about missing victims confidential. [1]

Some legal scholars have also criticized the case. [14] Some argue the attorneys' refusal to disclose the confidential information did not lead to a better outcome for the client. [14] Others say the attorneys' refusal to share information with the women's families was appalling; they claim attorneys should disclose information that might provide closure for victims in a way that would not impact their client. [24] Similarly, some have considered a new exception to confidentiality rules to allow disclosure when victims suffer severe emotional harm. [16] Moreover, others criticize the case for exempting lawyers from laws, like the public health code requiring the disclosure of dead bodies, that apply to everyone else. [14]

The case has been the subject of numerous books, including Privileged Information by Tom Alibrandi with Frank Armani (1984) [2] and Terror in the Adirondacks: The True Story of Serial Killer Robert F. Garrow by Lawrence Gooley (2009). [25]

It was featured in “The Buried Bodies Case” in 2016 on the podcast RadioLab. [1]

It has also been dramatized in the 1987 TV film Sworn to Silence, [26] and a 2003 episode of the TV series Law & Order , "Bodies.” [27] In 2017, Fargo producer Noah Hawley announced the development of a feature film based on the case. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-disclosure agreement</span> Contractual agreement not to disclose specified information

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA), also known as a confidentiality agreement (CA), confidential disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement (PIA), or secrecy agreement (SA), is a legal contract or part of a contract between at least two parties that outlines confidential material, knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one another for certain purposes, but wish to restrict access to. Doctor–patient confidentiality, attorney–client privilege, priest–penitent privilege and bank–client confidentiality agreements are examples of NDAs, which are often not enshrined in a written contract between the parties.

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.

Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is "[a] client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney."

Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits the access to or places restrictions on distribution of certain types of information.

Professional responsibility is a set of duties within the concept of professional ethics for those who exercise a unique set of knowledge and skill as professionals.

Robert Francis Garrow Sr. was an American serial rapist and later spree killer who was active in New York State in the early 1970s. After committing several rapes, Garrow went on an 18-day killing spree, stabbing four people to death before being apprehended. His criminal trial, known as the Buried Bodies Case, became an important case in legal ethics after his attorneys refused to disclose the location of the bodies of two of his victims, citing attorney–client privilege. Garrow was later shot dead while escaping from prison in 1978.

The clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, pastor–penitent privilege, clergyman–communicant privilege, or ecclesiastical privilege, is a rule of evidence that forbids judicial inquiry into certain communications between clergy and members of their congregation. This rule recognises certain communication as privileged and not subject to otherwise obligatory disclosure, similar to attorney–client privilege between lawyers and clients. In many jurisdictions certain communications between a member of the clergy of some or all religious faiths and a person consulting them in confidence are privileged in law. In particular, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans, among adherents of other Christian denominations, confess their sins to priests, who are unconditionally forbidden by Church canon law from making any disclosure, a position supported by the law of many countries, although in conflict with civil (secular) law in some jurisdictions. It is a distinct concept from that of confidentiality.

In common law jurisdictions, the duty of confidentiality obliges solicitors to respect the confidentiality of their clients' affairs. Information that solicitors obtain about their clients' affairs may be confidential, and must not be used for the benefit of persons not authorized by the client. Confidentiality is a prerequisite for legal professional privilege to hold.

Legal outsourcing, also known as legal process outsourcing (LPO), refers to the practice of a law firm or corporation obtaining legal support services from an outside law firm or legal support services company. When the LPO provider is based in another country, the practice is called offshoring and involves the practice of outsourcing any activity except those where personal presence or contact is required, e.g. appearances in court and face-to-face negotiations. When the LPO provider is based in the same country, the practice of outsourcing includes agency work and other services requiring a physical presence, such as court appearances. This process is one of the incidents of the larger movement towards outsourcing. The most commonly offered services have been agency work, document review, legal research and writing, drafting of pleadings and briefs, and patent services.

In common law jurisdictions and some civil law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client. The privilege is that of the client and not that of the lawyer.

The doctrine of priest–penitent privilege does not appear to apply in English law. The orthodox view is that under the law of England and Wales privileged communication exists only in the context of legal advice obtained from a professional adviser. A statement of the law on priest–penitent privilege is contained in the nineteenth century case of Wheeler v. Le Marchant:

In the first place, the principle protecting confidential communications is of a very limited character. ... There are many communications, which, though absolutely necessary because without them the ordinary business of life cannot be carried on, still are not privileged. ... Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important than his life or his fortune, are not protected.

A lawyer referral service maintains a network of lawyers, and connects people in need of lawyers with its participating attorneys. A potential client who contacts a lawyer referral service is directed to a lawyer who practices in the area of law that is most appropriate for their situation. Some lawyer referral services charge a fee for providing a referral, while others provide referrals at no cost to the prospective client. Many referral services connect prospective clients with lawyers who have agreed to provide a low-cost or free initial consultation.

Therapeutic privilege refers to the decision of a healthcare practitioner to withhold information from a patient when there is a justified belief that disclosure may cause serious mental or physical harm to them. As of 2022, this defence is permissible in countries such as Australia, Canada, England, Netherlands and Wales as an exception to the standard consent process. Despite this, there are very limited cases in which therapeutic privilege has been upheld. This is mainly due to the complex ethical and legal ramifications in withholding information from a patient and how to define someone as being at sufficient risk to fall into this category wherein therapeutic privilege should prevail. Another challenge in enacting therapeutic privilege is the consideration of other professionals involved in patient care, such as where there is a multidisciplinary care team. However, in withholding information, there is also a denial of patient autonomy

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

In U.S. legal procedure, each party to a lawsuit has the duty to disclose certain information, such as the names and addresses of witnesses, and copies of any documents that it intends to use as evidence, to the opposing party. This duty is subject to certain exceptions, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; furthermore, the rules applicable in state courts vary from state to state.

In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client and so may only be waived by the client.

Adverse authority or adverse controlling authority, in United States law, is some controlling authority based on a legal decision and opposed to the position of an attorney in a case before the court. The attorney is under an ethical obligation to disclose that legal decision, which is an adverse authority, to the court. This obligation is set forth in the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, §3.3.

The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of attorney–client privilege. Under "common interest" or "joint defense" doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against a common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege. Because the joint defense, "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a 'joint defense' privilege is more aptly termed the 'common interest' rule."

Legal ghostwriting is a form of unbundled legal services in the United States in which an attorney drafts a document on behalf of a client without formally appearing before the court. Instead, the client represents themself pro se.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 "The Buried Bodies Case | Radiolab". WNYC Studios. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alibrandi, Tom (with Frank H. Armani) (1984). Privileged Information. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "The Toughest Call". ABA Journal. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Lerman, Lisa G.; et al. (2007). "The Buried Bodies Case: Alive and Well After Thirty Years". The Professional Lawyer. 19– via CUA Law Scholarship Repository.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Lerman, Lisa G. and Philip G. Schrag. (2016). Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law. Aspen Publishers (Fourth Edition).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  7. 1 2 3 Chamberlain, Jeffrey Frank (1975). "Legal Ethics: Confidentiality and the Case of Robert Garrow's Lawyers". Buffalo Law Review. 25.
  8. 1 2 3 "Slayer's 2 Lawyers Kept Secret of 2 More Killings". The New York Times. 1974-06-20. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 N.Y. State Bar Ass'n Comm. on Professional Ethics, Op. 479 (1978).
  10. 1 2 3 Feldman, Heidi Li (1996). "Codes and Virtues: Can Good Lawyers be Good Ethical Deliberators?". Southern California Law Review. 69.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "The ethics of keeping your mouth shut - the case of the buried bodies". Radio National. 2008-09-17. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 People v. Belge, 72 N.Y. 2d 798 (1975).
  13. ↑ Griffin, Leslie C. (1995). "The Lawyer's Dirty Hands". Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 8. S2CID   25421543.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aviel, Rebecca (2011). "When The State Demands Disclosure". Cardozo Law Review. 33.
  15. 1 2 3 People v. Belge, 376 N.Y.S. 2d 771 (1975).
  16. 1 2 3 Snyder, Lloyd B. (2002). "Is Attorney-Client Confidentiality Necessary?". Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. 15.
  17. 1 2 "Chart Comparing State Exceptions to Model Rule 1.6" (PDF). American Bar Association. November 2018.
  18. ↑ U.S. Const. amend. V.
  19. ↑ Luban, David (1990). "Freedom and Constraint in Legal Ethics: Some Mid-course Corrections to Lawyers and Justice" (PDF). Maryland Law Review. 49.
  20. ↑ "Alphabetical List of Jurisdictions Adopting Model Rules". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  21. ↑ Hayden, Paul T.; NeJaime, Douglas (2012). Ethical Lawyering: Legal and Professional Responsibilities in the Practice of Law. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
  22. ↑ Subin, Harry I. (1985). "The Lawyer as Superego: Disclosure of Client Confidences to Prevent Harm". Iowa Law Review. 70.
  23. ↑ Badaracco Jr., Joseph L. "Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (A)". Harvard Business School Case 90-212, June 1990 (Revised October 1991).
  24. ↑ Ellman, Stephen (1993). "The Ethic of Care as an Ethic for Lawyers". Georgetown Law Journal. 81.
  25. ↑ Gooley, Lawrence (2009). Terror in the Adirondacks: The True Story of Serial Killer Robert F. Garrow. Peru, NY: Bloated Toe Publishing.
  26. ↑ Sworn to Silence, vol. IMDB.com, retrieved 2019-03-13
  27. ↑ Bodies, vol. IMDB.com, retrieved 2019-03-13
  28. ↑ Fleming, Mike Jr. (2017-02-17). "'Legion's Noah Hawley Pacts Two Fox Searchlight Pics; Helming Reese Witherspoon In 'Pale Blue Dot'". Deadline. Retrieved 2019-03-13.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.